Need some help understanding compelling selling a pill.

[PassingThrough]

I do not see how you can compel someone to sell something they do not want to. It just does not seem right to me.

You can not compel a doctor to perform an abortion. You can not compel a business to serve/sell alcohol. You can not compel a Christian bookstore to sell pornography. Etc

I am Pro-Choice but I do not like the idea of compelling pharmacist to sell something they find morally obejectionable.


Peace Out

[Webster Green]

1. Perhaps those folks are in the wrong occupation?

Never too late for re-training.

Divinity School sounds about right.

[PassingThrough]

2. On another vein, How about compelling someone to sell guns?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

6. Hollow argument

If you take a job at a place that sells guns you made the choice yourself.

[PassingThrough]

9. I am talking about business owners for one.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. Expound then

I'm interested in learning how gun stores are like pharmacies.

[PassingThrough]

16. Lol, not what I meant but what the hay...

A gun store sells guns. Lets say I want a Desert Eagle. Should every store be compelled to carry that particular weapon?

Not really the argument I am trying to make. Guns and medicine really are not comparable. A bad example on my part.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

23. I will die if I don't get my medicine

I will not die if I don't get my Desert Eagle.

That's one pretty big difference right there.

Also, there's not one pharmacy in business today that did not expect to be selling contraceptives when they opened their doors.

[PassingThrough]

26. But they are not required to...

No one is required to sell contraceptives. Also, the morning after pill is not life or death. You have time to shop around to find someone that sells them.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

37. You're wrong

The morning after pill could be life or death. Some women cannot be pregnant, we are not all born to breed.

[PassingThrough]

42. Maybe it could but in most cases its not.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

50. So we pick and choose who lives?

I die because I live in a rural area and have a pharmacy that decides they are going to "choose" not to provide my medicine because it offended them?

Seriously, this is medical care and between a patient and their doctor, not subject to someones whim to prove a point. If my illness so offends my pharmacist they should choose another field of work.

[PassingThrough]

57. Preg. is not an illness and in most cases it is not life/death that early.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

60. So I should wait and have an abortion?

Is that what you're saying?

[PassingThrough]

63. That or go some place that sells the ma pill. Someone will.

[UncleSepp]

70. No, that's not true

You really don't have any idea what it's like to be in a small town with limited resources? What if the only pharmacy in town won't sell it, or all the pharmacies belong to the same chain that won't sell it?

I've lived in towns like that. You are operating off of some very narrow assumptions.

[PassingThrough]

75. No, I clearly state in sever post that some people will have to travel

long distances. Living in a small town does have drawbacks.

[UncleSepp]

83. The traveling also is not always possible.

Or do you also not understand limited resources in that area?

[PassingThrough]

90. Now now, no need to get hostile.

[UncleSepp]

95. Just pointing out that you do not seem very aware of others' reality.

THere's no hostility in pointing out the obvious.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

76. I live in a rural area

You are not taking that into account. There is a small window and I have to get the pill ASAP. My doctor has provided me with the prescription knowing my health condition he and I made the decision.

How does my pharmacy have any right to force me into having an abortion?

[PassingThrough]

79. It is not forcing you to do anything. It is choosing what stock it

carries. I am sure you can find a pharmacy within a 10 hour drive that carries said drug. If your life is in danger is a road trip that horrible? Is convenience worth infringing on the rights of the pharmacist?

[UncleSepp]

85. If your life is in danger, is a 10 hour road trip even possible?

Think about what you just said. You're in medical danger. You have a medical problem. You are going to... take a 10 hour road trip?

[PassingThrough]

89. Er, pregnency isnt going to kill you in 10 hours after becoming preg.

[UncleSepp]

99. No, but what if it were another drug that the pharmacist won't sell?

If the pharmacist is allowed not to sell RU486, he's allowed not to sell any drug he finds objectionable.

[PassingThrough]

104. That is not a issue right now. Only the MA is.

[UncleSepp]

106. Funny, earlier stocking guns was an issue...

Did you get the "I am the only person allowed to use analogies to make a point, or to extend the logic to other areas" card when you started this thread?

[PassingThrough]

111. Ok, now you are clearlly being hostile. I even stated the gun thing

was a poor choice. I started this discussion to attempt to learn more about an issue that I know little about. I do not need or have time for hostility.


Peace Out

[UncleSepp]

115. Welcome to an actual argument.

Pointing out where your arguments have repeatedly gone wrong on the same point is not hostile. It's just arguing.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

100. His rights stopped where mine began

I have the right to proper health care. In this case under your scenario I would not receive it and my choices would be; I can die from my pregnancy, or I can have an abortion and take all the unneeded health risk involved, not to mention the moral factors involved. Or I have to come up with transportation (which I don't have) to a pharmacy willing to fill my prescription.

Picture having to deal with all of this after being raped. All this just so someone could make a point that wasn't really a point anyway. The morning after pill is a contraceptive and nothing more. Those who choose to try and portray it as something other than that have an agenda. An agenda that could very well cost innocent people such as myself their life.

[PassingThrough]

107. I can find no simple answer. That is my problem. Right now I can

not support forcing pharmacist to sell the MA pill. It maybe difficult for some to get the pill but it will not be impossible.

[tkmorris]

120. Pharmacies must be licensed,

In order to receive a license to operate a pharmacy in a given state, some states require that the pharmacies carry and distribute certain types of drugs. They cannot COMPEL anyone to fill those prescriptions, but they can yank the license of anyone who refuses to do so. Walmart is perfectly free to close their pharmacy if they don't like the conditions the state imposes upon retaining the license.

A similar situation is car insurance. Most states require that you have it to register a vehicle. You don't HAVE to get insurance, but if you don't they will not register the vehicle. Simple.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

127. Same thing with life and health insurance

I know I was in the field. If I wouldn't preform my job per regulations I would lose my license.

[tkmorris]

134. Exactly

Anything that a state issues a license for has requirements that must be met. States (and othe license issuing organizations) are perfectly within their rights in doing so. This seems fairly straightforward to me.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

123. I thought we were talking about business?

You do know that the morning after pill is just a contraceptive, right? It's the same thing as taking 4 regular birth control pills. Nothing more, nothing less. The effect is the same and these pharmacist that are protesting this know that. They try and sully the issue, but that's the truth of it.

If you give them the right not to sell one form on birth control you give them the right not to sell all forms. How many womens rights are you willing to take away for one pharmacist who knew what he would be selling when he chose his field of work?

[PassingThrough]

129. I am hesitant (sp?) to take away anyones rights including pharmacist.

I wouldnt compel them to sell anything they choose not to.

[UncleSepp]

133. A pharmacist does not have a proven legal right not to dispense a drug.

There is no right being taken away from the pharmacist.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

136. They can choose another field of work

Their job was a choice they made. A person doesn't choose the gender they or born or if they will have a health condition. Not to mention a woman doesn't choose if she will be raped.

Really, there is no comparison.

[Heddi]

150. Actually pregnancy is an illness

I don't have time to look at your profile to see if you are a male or female, but in case you didn't know, here are SOME (just some. Not all) of the COMMON MEDICAL DISEASE PROCESSES that go along with pregnancies.

Remember. These are common. That means they happen alot of the time. Not some of the time. Not once in a while.

Ectopic Pregnancy (patient may die as a result of bleeding into abdominal cavity if ectopic pregnancy ruptures. Also at higher risk of sterility and future ectopic pregnancies)

Pregnancy induced Hypertension (patient may continue to be hypertensive after delivery)

Gestational Diabetes (patient is at higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes later in life. Patient also at risk of continuing to be diabetic after delivery)

PreEclampsia

Eclampsia (seizure activity may continue after delivery)

HELLP syndrome (symptoms may continue after delivery)

Placenta Previa

Placenta Abruptio (patient may die because of blood loss related to interrupted placenta)

Uterine Rupture (woman may die because of blood loss related to ruptured uterus. May create situation where woman cannot carry successful pregnancy to term afterwards)

Iron Deficient Anemia (may have been apparent before pregnancy, may develop because of pregnancy)

Peripardium cardiomyopathy (congestive heart failure found in the last month of pregnancy or the first three months post-partum)

Cardiac decompensation (due to need of heart to pump extra blood to reach placenta)

Exascerbation of Asthma

Systemic Lupus Erythemastosus (pregnancy may ascerbate symptoms. Women with SLE, or Lupus, Generally cannot take hormonal contraceptives because they ascerbate symptoms)

Bell's Palsy (facial paralysis is generally temporary, but can be permanent in some women)

Cholelithiasis and Cholecystitis (Pregnancy increases risk of gallstones and gallbladder inflammation in women)

Hyperemesis Gravidum (nausea and vomiting which causes a woman to lose 5% or more of her pre-pregnancy rate)

Hemorrhage (woman can die due to excessive blood loss, may have complications for life due to non-lethal blood loss)

Recurrent premature dilation of the cervix (can potentitate future miscarriages in women)

Hydatidiform mole (molar pregnancy, can cause rupture of uterus)

Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (can cause permanent and fatal blood clots in women)

Premature Rupture of Membranes (can cause preterm labour, fetal death, hemorrhage)

Pelvic Dystocia (abnormalities in anatomy lead to conditions which are not suitable for birth and can cause complications in women who become pregnant)

Postpartum Hemorrhage (same complications with other forms of hemorrhage--can be life threatning or life altering)

Retained Placenta (can cause infection, infertility, sepsis, death)

Inversion of Uterus (can cause hemorrhage, infertility)

Subinvolution of Uterus (can cause hemorrhage, infertility)

Hemorraghic/hypovolemic shock (due to excessive loss of blood)

Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (increased risk of bleeding due to decrease in platelets)

Thrombophlebitis (blood clots deep in the legs which can migrate to heart or lungs and cause permanent injury, illness, or death)

Amniotic Embolus (particles, hair, etc from fetus get into vascular system and become lodged in lung. Nearly always fatal)

Endometriosis (postpartum infection of the placental placement or entire uterus. Increases risk of sepsis and other infections)

Infection of Surgical Site (c-section, episiotomy, etc)

Urinary Tract Infections (can become systemic, leading to urosepsis which can be fatal)

Mastitis (untreated, may lead to breast abscess)

Uterine Dysplacement and Prolapse (increased risk of cervical/uterine cancer with use of pessiaries)

Genital Fistulas (connection beween vagina and anus. Can lead to serious infections, sterility, etc)

Postpartum Depression

Postpartum Depression with Psychotic Features

Postpartum onset of panic disorder

Electrolyte imbalances

inability to take many medications due to teratogenity (toxic to fetus)

---

And those are just the things listed in ONE chapter of my maternity nursing book. If I felt like educating you more (which I don't), I could go through the other 4-5 chapters dealing with complications of pregnancy.

Also, remember that these problems don't just affect the woman. They can have disaterous effects on the fetus. THey can lead to retarded intrauterine growth, excessive amniotic fluid, large-for-gestational-age babies, preterm labour, post-term labour, congenital defects, premature delivery and premature infants.

But I'm sure you knew all of that, right.

So remind me again why pregnancy isn't an illness?

[kaygore]

8. If you work in a Wal Mart, you better be prepared to sell guns

[htuttle]

Not the same -- it's about protected categories

The federal government, and most city and state governments, forbid discrimination (such as not serving someone) on the basis of race, creed, gender or religious beliefs. That works both ways.

Gun sales by themselves are not a protected category. You could not forbid gun sales to people of a particular race, religion or gender, however.

[PassingThrough]

27. How is selling drugs a protect category? /nt

[freeplessinseattle]

3. hmmm, how about bookstore employess being forced to sell

Limbaugh, or Coulter, or O'Reilly?

just for one example. as someone who has had various retail jobs, I can tell you I was morally offended at the outrageous prices I was expected to charge for cheap pieces of crap.


don't know why I'm even bothering.

[tyedyeto]

4. They are in the business of filling prescriptions that a Doctor has ...

ordered for his patients. If they will not comply with a physician's request, they are in the wrong business. It's not up to them to override a written prescription.

[PassingThrough]

10. They are not overriding anything. Not all pharmacies carry all

types of drugs. Should they be compelled to carry everything? What about the mixture drugs that have to be specially made. Should every pharmacy be required to do these kind of work?

[tyedyeto]

19. They should carry any medicines a doctor might prescribe

If I am given a prescription by my physician, I should not have to go from one pharmacy to another to another to find one who will fill my legal prescription.

What medicines have to be specially mixed today? Yes, years ago, many medicines were mixed but today it's all about counting out pills and dealing with insurance companies via computer.

edit for typo

[PassingThrough]

25. Alot are special mixed.

Usually its combo drugs and the like. Check out your phone book under Pharmacys and I bet you will find several that advertise they mix. Has alot to do with potencies of some.

Also, some drugs are rarely used and expensive. Not every pharmacy is going to carry these.

Can you tell I dated a pharmacist? :)

[Horse with no Name]

69. Very few chain pharmacies mix drugs

In case you are not aware, pharmacies ARE aware of what their local docs prescribe and if they do not have the medication that is prescribed, then these pharmacies will borrow from another pharmacy or the local hospital.
If you were around medicine at all, then you would know that certain docs prescribe certain things and the pharmacies tend to know what the docs use.

[UncleSepp]

28. For one, some injectable hormone preparations

Also, if you need a drug that normally comes in one non-active base, but you are allergic to that base, the compounding pharmacy can prepare the drug with a different base. A compounding pharmacy can also prepare dosages that are nonstandard. For example, if the pills for something come in 100 mg and 100 mg sizes, but you need 175 mg, the compounding pharmacy can make the pills for you that are at the precise dosage.

[PassingThrough]

32. Doctor or pharmacist? :)

[UncleSepp]

41. Neither - transgendered guy looking at hormone injections.

We learn a lot about that sort of thing. Would it be ok for the compounding pharmacy near me to refuse me the testosterone because the pharmacist finds it immoral? :-)

[PassingThrough]

43. Sure, Not saying I like the idea but I just do not like forcing people to

things they find morally objectionable.

[UncleSepp]

52. Who's forcing them? They're free to quit their objectionable jobs.

Like you said in another post, these things aren't always easy. Sometimes, you've got to make hard choices. Like do I want to actually do my job.

[UncleSepp]

131. Actually, in Washington State, that would be illegal

Based on Washington's recently passed antidiscrimination law, it would be a violation of state law for the pharmacy to refuse to sell hormone therapy to a transgendered patient. It would be a violation of the same state law that would prohibit a landlord from not renting to a gay man because he is gay.

[UncleSepp]

22. False analogy again

A compounding pharmacy has expertise and equipment that a non compounding pharmacy does not. That's why they sell the "mixture drugs" that other pharmacies don't, not because of a "moral objection".

[PassingThrough]

31. Does the reason matter? By alot of ppls logic it comes down to

a pharmacist must fill anything given by a doctor. Some clearly can not. Does the reason really matter?

[UncleSepp]

46. Yes, it matters a lot

There are qualifications which are forced upon medical practicioners - obviously you are compelled to be licensed. Not every pharmacy is compelled to be licensed as a compounding pharmacy. Pharmacies not so qualified do not do what they cannot do. Pharmacists who do not do what they do not want to do, but are qualified to do, are in a very different situation.

[PassingThrough]

54. No license I know of compells a pharmacy to carry every medication.

[UncleSepp]

58. Nobody said it did but you. Apples and oranges again.

Again you are making a false analogy.

[kaygore]

5. Then they need to go into another line of work

I can not believe that you are really pro-choice. Sorry, but we are talking about people's health here. I believe that most medicines are over prescribed, hence I chose another line of work.

[PassingThrough]

18. Call me a liar if you wish. Peace Out /nt

[TomInTib]

7. Pharmacists don't SELL anything. They FILL prescriptions and

fill the order.

What if they were morally opposed to insulin? Or heart medication or cholesterol drugs because it is the customers' responsibility to take care of themselves?

Let 'em go sell cars or shoes.

[PassingThrough]

12. That still does not do it for me. They do sell medicines. They are not

required to carry any and every medicine. The consumer can go to a pharmacy that carrys what they need. Compelling does not seem right.

[TomInTib]

33. They are licensed. Would it be OK for an emergency room to..

turn away a patient based on ethnicity, religion, or gender?

Where do you draw the line?

[PassingThrough]

44. Laws specificly cover those areas.

[UncleSepp]

48. And a law specifically covers this area, too.

You don't agree with that law, however, so why do you agree with the law that requires equal protection in the ER or in the use of public accommodations?

[PassingThrough]

59. What law compells the selling of the morning after pill? /nt

[UncleSepp]

68. Generally, they are state laws or policies

For example, Massachussetts state law requires pharmacies to stock (and one would assume, sell) all commonly prescribed medicines. This was the basis for the recent court decision.

[TomInTib]

51. And if all is to ever be right with the World, will soon apply to this.

Good post and provocative thinking, tho.

Thanks and keep it up.

Lockstep ain't necessarily a good thing.

Pax

[PassingThrough]

61. DU needs a chat room, would make this easier :)

[UncleSepp]

36. You're not from a small town, are you?

The consumer cannot always go to a pharmacy that carries what they need. Sometimes, resources are very limited.

[PassingThrough]

45. I have no perfect answer. It may require people to travel long distances

to find what they need. There are no easy solutions.

[UncleSepp]

47. There's a very easy solution. Compel the pharmacist...

... whose job it is to fill prescriptions. Don't compel the patient.

[postulater]

13. If the pharmacist actually produced the pills

she could simply refrain from producing them, you're right no one could force her to produce them.

But the pharmacist's job is to process the order not to make the decision about whether the order should be processed or not. If the pharmacist chooses not to process the order then he/she is not performing the requirements of the job and should expect to be replaced.

[PassingThrough]

20. What if they own the pharmacy?

Pharmacist are not compelled to fill prescriptions. They can turn down any they choose. A drug store is a business just like any other.

[TahitiNut]

72. Well, here's where the claim of 'rights' breaks down.

You say "They can turn down any they choose." That's based, I expect, in a theory of liberty that grants a public license without regulation or restriction regarding the choices of what products they cannot and can sell and to whom they can and cannot sell them to. Obviously, there is no such unhindered 'liberty' - since licenses to do business with the public are granted conditionally. Those conditions are not "for whatever reason" choices ... and the reason is a critical determinant for the legality of the choice.

For example, businesses in the Jim Crow south persistently claimed the 'right' to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. Their exercise of that claimed 'right' was almost exclusively race-based. Clearly, that "reason' is not consistent with the 'public interest' - which is the very basis upon which any public license is granted. When a business acts contrary to the 'public interest,' the public has the power to revoke their license.

While a pharmacy can clearly choose to refuse stocking medications where the demand does not exist to a sufficient degree that the medication will sell before becoming waste (a total loss), no such rationale can be claimed for BC pills and other 'moral choice' meds.

Clearly, a pharmacist's right to the private exercise of his/her religious faith is not being infringed. Nobody is forcing him/her to take such medications himself or herself. In operating a publicly-licensed business, however, this is about imposing (under color of that license) his or her religious beliefs on another - where that other is, in fact, part of the interest group served by the license itself.

[PassingThrough]

78. I am aware of no such conditions that compel the selling of the MA pill.

[UncleSepp]

87. Just because you're not aware doesn't mean it doesn't exist

It's right here:

http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/15/wmt-contraception-massachusetts-cx_gl_0215autofacescan05.html

[PassingThrough]

93. Thats why I started this post. To learn things I was not aware of.

No need to become hostile.

[UncleSepp]

105. You appear to have started this post to argue your position.

If you want to learn things you're not aware of, asking questions rather than making arguments is a good way to start. Reading the news is a good way to follow up. Arguing back to your positions and pointing out repeated inconsistencies is hardly hostile. I and others here have been remarkably nonhostile, particularly for an online argument. This could be a total flame war, but it really is not.

[TahitiNut]

103. Your ignorance is not their license to operate contrary to the public's ..

... interest. Try telling the health inspector that your Hindu religious beliefs mean you can't be compelled to exercise rat controls. Try telling the licensing board that your refusal to allow menstruating women into your shoe store is based on Leviticus.

Nobody is "compelling" the pharmacist to do a damned thing! The pharmacist has requested permission to operate the business. The pharmacist has also applied for legal certification to operate as a pharmacist. Nobody forced or coerced him or her to do so. Nobody. (So, take your straw man of "compulsion" and save some toilet paper.)

He or she is COMPLETELY free to close down and fade into the sunset ... something I think someone here ought to consider: the freedom to leave.

[PassingThrough]

119. Lol

[UncleSepp]

135. lol lol

Why don't you try actually responding?

[PassingThrough]

139. Some people have become hostile. Read his last line. The purpose is

clear. I was looking for polite discourse and it is starting to turn ugly. Unfortunately some just can not disagree with others without becoming hostile.


Peace Out

[UncleSepp]

147. Making a strong point is not hostility.

You seem to be a little new here, and you might not be used to this kind of thing. This is really, really tame and polite for an online argument. Nobody's calling you any names, nobody's outright accusing you of being a troll or a freeper, and very few have even insinuated such a thing. That's where the hostility begins. People here are making strong points and using strong language, instead of saying inflammatory things and following them with "peace out" and smiley faces. If smiley faces would help - here:

:grouphug:

You are facing a vigorous emotional argument. That's fairly normal, particularly for controversial topics. Engage, lock horns, go at it - if you feel this strongly about your position, go tell TahitiNut what you think. Prove your point. Answer those assertions. If you cannot engage in a flame war, which is what this is turning into, you probably ought to sit back and observe some other flame wars and see how not to start one, how not to feed one, and how to make your points in such a way that will not lead to such aggressive discussion. Generally, when someone starts responding to strongly worded posts with LOL ROFL WTF or an eye rolling smiley, it's the equivalent of saying "What ever" in a verbal argument. It's a concession that you have nothing to say, and I doubt you meant to make a concession to that particular post.

You started this one, hon. It's up to you to either finish it or leave it.

[Horse with no Name]

84. My position is that if the pharmacy accepts insurance reimbursement

That they should be OBLIGATED BY CONTRACT to carry and dispense EVERY drug on the formulary of the insurance companies they contract with.
IF THEY DO NOT, then they should be forced to be a cash only business.
This would stop this nonsense in a heartbeat. A pharmacy would not survive one week without third party reimbursement.
When a customer is limited by options because of contracts between insurance companies and pharmacies of where they can get their prescriptions filled, the burden cannot or should not be placed on them.

[PassingThrough]

96. Ah, but insurance companies to not cover all drugs....

[Horse with no Name]

108. Ahhh but many do cover birth control pills

:)So they would be obligated to cover it.

[htuttle]

14. Should cab drivers be allowed to refuse taking people to strip clubs?

...or to synagogues, for that matter? They aren't allowed to, by most city's laws.

There are plenty of jobs in our society that are regulated by cities, states and the federal government. You are not allowed to refuse to sell to people because they are black or hispanic or caucasian, for example. You are not allowed to refuse to sell to women or men because they are women or men.

Refusing to fill certain prescriptions on the basis of a religious belief is the same thing. Pharmacists are regulated by the state, just as beauticians and bartenders and cab drivers are.

[PassingThrough]

38. This is not about religion. I know of no compelling strip club laws eithe

Regulated does not mean they are compelled to sell every medicine. Which state regualtions require the sell of all pills?

[htuttle]

112. Most municipalities prohibit cabdrivers turning down a ride...

...based, upon other things, the location of the pickup or the dropoff (unless it's out of the municipality, ie., out of town). In other words, you cannot refuse fares originating in certain neighborhoods, nor can you refuse fares dropping in certain neighborhoods, as it's interpreted as being upon the basis of race and/or creed.

Likewise, while there is no guaranteed right to buy a drink in the constitution, a bar cannot refuse service based upon the race or gender of the customer, as far as I know (unless they try to get tricky and become a 'private club', etc...).

State regulations do not require selling all pills. But if the pharmacy stocks a particular pill, a pharmacist cannot refuse to sell it based upon religious beliefs. It's about context.

As far as I know, NONE of the pharamacists that have been forced to sell a particular pill actually owned the pharmacy. The court cases that have come up were in the context of employer/employee law, ie., is an employer justified to fire someone due to insubordination (ie., no unemployment payments) in a case like this.

[SnoopDog]

15. It is like a fireman that refuses to save a person with blond hair...

It is against their special religion and morals...

Hope you don't have blond hair!

[UncleSepp]

17. False analogy.

Nobody needs pornography. Nobody needs alcohol. Porn and booze are not comparable to health care and medical treatment.

Health care providers, and a pharmacist is one, do not have the right to put their moral beliefs above their responsibility to provide health care. The pill is legal, therefore, the customer has the right to buy it. The pharmacist's rights not to sell it do not override the customer's right to buy it. If a person's beliefs are that strong, they do have the right to choose a different profession that will not put them into such a place of conflict.

The real problem comes in when there are limited pharmacists in a town who are qualified to dispense a certain drug, and none of the pharmacists are willing to do so. That effectively denies that drug, that avenue of medical care, to the people in that town because the handful of pharmacists are not willing to sell the drug.

It doesn't matter if it is the morning after pill, a narcotic pain reliever, or Thorazine. There are certainly individuals who have moral objections to all of those drugs, just as there are individuals whose lives are vastly improved by them. A pharmacist does not have the right to choose for a patient that he doesn't need his fentanyl because narcotics are mindclouding, or that she doesn't need her Thorazine because mental illnesses are actually caused by demons and can only be cured by God.

[VOX]

24. Wow. That whacking sound you hear is the hammer meeting the nail-head.

Well stated, UncleSepp! :thumbsup:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

30. Exactly right

There is no comparison. :thumbsup:

[Hekate]

49. Oh, well said, Uncle Sepp. "Mental illness caused by demons"

> It doesn't matter if it is the morning after pill, a narcotic
> pain reliever, or Thorazine. There are certainly individuals who
> have moral objections to all of those drugs, just as there are
> individuals whose lives are vastly improved by them. A pharmacist
> does not have the right to choose for a patient that he doesn't
> need his fentanyl because narcotics are mindclouding, or that
> she doesn't need her Thorazine because mental illnesses are
> actually caused by demons and can only be cured by God.

Hekate

[Hekate]

160. See pertinent DU thread: Pastor Says Mental Illness is ‘Demons’

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2112062&mesg_id=2112062

The pastor of a psychotic woman talked her into stopping her medication on the grounds that only God could cure her "demons." Then she murdered her baby.

Same question as before, second verse: If one of his parishoners decided to become a pharmacist, would it be okay with you if s/he refused to stock and dispense antipsychotics based on personal religious belief?

Do tell.

Hekate

[PassingThrough]

53. No one needs the morning after pill either.

I know that statement may not be popular but there are other abortion options.

Someone will sell the pill. yes, some may have to travel a long distance to get it but I still do not like the idea of forcing someone to sell an item they find morally objectionable.

Now I personally may be able to compromise by compelling public hospitals to carry the pill but not private pharmacies.

[UncleSepp]

55. And it's for the pharmacist to decide that now?

It's still up to the woman to decide if she needs the morning after pill, not the pharmacist. You think it's morally superior to give the pharmacist that right to choose for the woman?

[PassingThrough]

62. He/she is not choosing anything except what to stock. It is not

up to every pharmacist to make sure the ma pill is available to everyone. It is up to the consumer.

[UncleSepp]

88. Not according to the decision in Massachussetts

[Horse with no Name]

92. The majority of hospitals do not have retail pharmacies

and by law cannot dispense medication to the public.

[PassingThrough]

101. True, but all have pharmacies. Would not be difficult to require them

to provide this one item.

[UncleSepp]

109. Assuming one has non-emergency access to a hospital, of course...

[Horse with no Name]

114. Actually yes it would

Converting from a hospital pharmacy to a retail pharmacy is a costly measure. It is not something that is done at whim.
It means more staff, more bookkeeping, more licenses and more record keeping.
The majority of hospitals cannot do this, especially rural hospitals who are lucky to have one pharmacist during daytime hours to fill the needs of the hospitalized patients.

[PassingThrough]

117. But what if they only opened to the public for that one pill. I doubt

there would be to much of a problem.

[Horse with no Name]

124. Sorry it doesn't work that way in the real world

and yes, it would be a huge problem.
Federal law is federal law. There aren't any exceptions.
Hospitals are either a retail pharmacy or they are not.
Most are not. You cannot just fill a pill here and there.
Simply doesn't work that way.

[PassingThrough]

132. But it could. All it would take is one piece of legislation.

[UncleSepp]

138. And what if the pharmacist there doesn't want to fill the scrip?

Then you're back in the same situation again.

[Horse with no Name]

140. And who is going to supply pharmacists to all the rural hospitals?

They generally work 8 hours a day.
In that day, they have routine medications for the hospital patients, mixing special IV fluids, mixing antibiotics and other intravenous medications, filling stat medications, filling narcotic boxes for the floor, etc.
During after hours when there isn't a pharmacist available, the house supervisor can enter the pharmacy and retrieve medication for the hospitalized patients out of an emergency box.
Under no circumstances can a nurse fill a prescription for an outpatient.
No matter how much YOU like your idea, it isn't possible.

[Lorien]

118. Yes, women do need the morning after pill

"other abortion options" are far more costly and dangerous. The morning after pill does away with the possibility of the need for an abortion and gives the woman peace of mind, which is critical to her mental health- especially if she has just been raped.

The pill is legal. If a person choses to become a pharmacist then they have signed on to fill all prescriptions, period. THAT IS THEIR JOB.

[PassingThrough]

126. I am not against the pill. I am against forcing some to sell it.

[NMMNG]

161. Ding ding ding, we have a winner

Pharmacists are paid to dispense the drugs ordered by a licensed physician. They cannot change the orders of the physician, and should not be able to refuse to fill them.

If they have moral objections to medications of any sort they need to find a new job.

[LeftCoast]

21. What's next? HIV meds? What about medications that treat herpes?

How about a medication that treats something that the pharmacist is morally opposed to, but is also used for other medical conditions? It is not a pharmacists job to impose their moral beliefs on others. The federal government regulates medications, not the local pharmacist.

[PassingThrough]

65. They do not regulate what drugs a pharmacy sells.

[LeftCoast]

77. Oh really? I think the FDA would be interested in hearing that

:)

[PassingThrough]

80. You know what i meant. :p

[Czolgosz]

29. How do you feel about compelling a racist to serve black people?

[PassingThrough]

66. Off topic

[UncleSepp]

73. Decent analogy

[PassingThrough]

82. No, there are specific laws governing racisim.

The Civil Rights fight is not comparable to selling the MA pill.

[UncleSepp]

91. It is comparable, because the arguments were and are similar

The argument that establishments had the right to make the decision of whom to serve and whom not to serve based on their personal beliefs is the same legal argument.

[Czolgosz]

102. "there are specific laws governing racisim"? There are laws governing a

pharmacist's duties, too.

[PassingThrough]

113. None that compel the selling of all drugs. Now it seems some states

do compel specificly the selling of the MA drug. I still do not like it.

[Czolgosz]

122. Actually, many states require pharmacists adhere to a code of conduct,

and many state codes of conduct preclude a pharmacist from refusing to fill a legal prescription.

It's not a criminal penal statute like the speed limit or the criminal law prohibition against negligently shooting someone in the face, but it's a regulatory duty. You don't go to jail for violating such duties, but you could lose your license and you could be subjected to civil suit.

[Czolgosz]

98. You may need more help understanding this issue than you imagine if you

are unable to see how this is clearly not "off topic."

The point is that there are many fields where society demands that people who have a job in that field must perform their job functions in circumstances where their personal beliefs might conflict with that duty.

If your personal beliefs mean that you cannot serve people of all races, perhaps you ought seek some line of work other than as a cafe owner.

If your personal beliefs mean that you cannot provide stabilizing medical treatment to people even when they cannot pay, perhaps you ought seek some line of work other than as an emergency room doctor.

If your personal beliefs mean that you cannot enforce the laws evenhandedly when you are personally acquainted with the law breakers, perhaps you ought seek some line of work other than law enforcement.

If your personal beliefs mean that you cannot provide prescription drugs legal prescribed, perhaps you ought seek some line of work other than as a pharmacist.

If your personal beliefs mean that you cannot see how these situations are analogous, I hope that you are neither a racist cafe owner, an irresponsible doctor, a biased cop, nor a pharmacist.

[Czolgosz]

34. How do you feel about compelling doctors to stabilize people who can't pay

[PassingThrough]

67. Off topic

[UncleSepp]

74. Not at all, it's an analogy... one that is as good as yours

[Hekate]

35. Legal substance + prescribed by a medical doctor = medically necessary

A pharmacist is not a doctor, and more specifically, not the customer's doctor. A pharmacist does not get to write prescriptions -- for anything.

Let's put it this way: if my religion tells me that insulin is evil and ungodly and that diabetes is just God's will, and I decide to train to become a pharmacist, and your grandma comes in with her Rx for insulin.... Now how do you feel about my right to pick and choose which prescriptions I will and will not dispense?

I believe that licensing requirements for pharmacists should very clearly state that all legitimate prescriptions must be filled. The only allowable exception might be for someone working for a religiously run hospital, because then the patients will know what to expect.

Make no mistake about it: this trumped-up issue is about the control of female sexuality at every age and stage. The religious right says they don't believe in abortion -- fine. But then it turns out that they don't believe in preventing pregnancy, either. They have managed to redefine nearly every form of contraception as an abortifacient, which is patently untrue.

THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT DO NOT WANT WOMEN TO BE ABLE TO HAVE IUDS, THE PILL, RU486, PLAN B, OR CREAMS AND DOUCHES, AND THEY CLAIM CONDOMS DON'T WORK. Now do you get it?

Hekate
fuming

[PassingThrough]

71. Well...

Licensing currently does not require such things so that is a moot point.

I am well aware of why the anti-choice grps oppose the pill. That has nothing to do with my reluctance to force pharmacist to sell the pill.

[NanceGreggs]

39. Scenario ...

You bring your child into an emergency room on a Friday night; his airway is blocked, he's choking to death. Immediate action is required.

The surgeon working the ER that night looks at the child says, "I'm sorry, I can't help you. A simple tracheotomy would save him, but I'm an Orthodox Jew and it is now the sabbath, and I am COMPELLED by my religion not to work on the sabbath."

The child dies.

What is YOUR reaction to the doctor? "Why on earth did you take the job as on-call surgeon on a Friday night, KNOWING you wouldn't perform that job?"

Well, I have the same question for pharmacists who, for whatever reason, REFUSE TO PERFORM the job they've taken, which is filling prescriptions.

Why on earth did you take a job you KNEW you would not or could not perform?

[PassingThrough]

86. Well one issue is life and death and one is not.

Also, the doctors take an oath and know they are required to render aid to anyone in need.

[Czolgosz]

40. How do you feel about compelling poilice to enforce the laws against cops?

[PassingThrough]

116. Police are compelled to enforce all laws regardless if the criminal is a

cop or not.

[Czolgosz]

128. Exactly. Even when enforcing the laws conflicts with their personal views

[Horse with no Name]

56. It really is a matter of choice

IF a pharmacist has a problem filling legally prescribed prescriptions of legal medication, then he should find a job that does not require him to morally corrupt himself.
Your examples are straw men.
A Doctor who does not want to perform abortions will not seek employment in an abortion clinic.
A business that does not want to serve alcohol will not apply for an alcoholic beverage license.
A Christian bookstore will not attend a market that features pornography.
In that same vein, a pharmacist who does not want to fill birth control pills does not have to work in a retail pharmacy.
Let me just ask you a question.
If you are bleeding to death and need a blood transfusion in order to survive and the only Doctor available is a Jehovah's Witness, should he be allowed to impart his religious beliefs on you because he finds it morally objectable and not order the transfusion?

[PassingThrough]

121. I think the doctor compelled to perform an abortion is a good analogy.

It fits rather well in my view. Alot of doctors know how to perform abortions but for whatever reason choose not to. They should not be compelled to perform them unless its a life/death issue.

[Horse with no Name]

130. Your analogy sucks

Again, it is a straw man argument.
Doctors that do not want to perform abortions do not seek employment in abortion clinics.
Pharmacists who don't want to fill legally prescribed medication shouldn't seek employment in a retail pharmacy.
And, you are wrong. "Alot of doctors know how to perform abortions" --actually no, they do not.

[PassingThrough]

137. Sorry you are not getting it...

Alot of doctors do know how to perform abortions but choose not to. They do not work in abortion clinics. What about doctors who know how to perform abortions? Should they be required to? I say no.

[UncleSepp]

142. If the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother,

or to preserve the health of the mother, absolutely yes. That's part of the physician's responsibility in providing medical care, and the physician also has as his responsibility making that kind of judgment call. A pharmacist does not have the right to override the doctor's judgment call.

Doctors are not being forced to provide elective abortions anywhere. This is another strawman argument.

[REP]

143. Is The Doctor a Plastic Surgeon or a Obstetrician?

Playing along with this inane scenario for a moment:

a plastic surgeon will never be in a position where terminating a pregnancy would be a necessary part of the job; an obstetrician, on the other hand, may have to terminate a pregnancy to preserve the life or health of a woman. Should the obstetrician refuse, and let the patient die or suffer permanent, serious heart and/or kidney damage?

[Horse with no Name]

144. Please cite your references

on "Alot of doctors know how to perform abortions".
Because I call bullshit on this one.
This requires special training that not all physician's have or are required to have.
Nobody would force a physician to perform an abortion, just as nobody is forcing the pharmacist to fill a legal script.
The pharmacist can do exactly as the doc does and not take a job that requires him to do something that he doesn't agree with morally.
I'm sorry YOU don't get it.

[rucky]

64. If you are a professional, there's a code you follow.

You do not make value judgements on your customers, when confidentiality is expected of you.

You'd never hear a pharmacist say, "Hope the Herpes clears up, Harry."

But I've gotta admit, you have a point about legislating it. I think it's enough of an outrage against women that the "free market" of public pressure will take care of this little trend.

[mockmonkey]

81. And when the anti-choice crowd has

closed down the pharmacies that do fill all presciptions with the threats and intimidation like they have with so many abortion clinics then what?

Let me guess, "Oh gee, it doesn't affect me where's the problem?"

Maybe what we need are signs for those pharmacies that won't sell as prescribed by your doctor. That way people won't have to waste their time and money dealing with them.

[rucky]

151. Why can't we shut down the ones who don't fill perscriptions?

As if the fundies have more grassroots than there are women on birth control?

This is a perfect fight to take to the streets on - not stay in the living room.

[Lorien]

94. I'm opposed to selling beef, but if I take a job at Burger King

then I do so with the understanding that I'll be selling beef. If I don't want to sell Beef, I won't take a job there-even if it's the only job available.

Pharmacists don't get to play God when playing God is not a part of their rulebook to begin with. All of us will suffer the consequences if we can't follow the rules of our given occupation.

[PassingThrough]

145. If you take a job at a pharmacy that sells the MA pill then yea the

pharmacist should sell the pill or be fired. Different story when he joins a business that he knows already sells the pill. Then its his choice to work there.

[UncleSepp]

155. It's his choice to work there or leave when they start carrying it too

That's the choice he can exercise that allows him to maintain his moral integrity without his choice affecting the lives of others. It's a difficult choice, but an ethical one.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PassingThrough]

141. So you insult those that disagree with you. Oh well. Guess this was not

the place to post a question. The MA pill is something I am not that familar with. I recently came to DU and thought this would be a good place to discuss my misgivings with people that share similar political views as I. Seems my quest for enlightenment and enjoyable debate its over on this topic.


Peace Out

[REP]

146. You Had an Argument?

Must have missed it - all I saw were some lame analogies.

[Horse with no Name]

148. It seems to me that you came to this argument loaded with emotion

And without facts to support your position.
Rhetoric is one thing, but if you are going to take a position in an argument, then you shouldn't tuck tail and run when the facts start getting in the way.

[AlienGirl]

149. Should a vegan supermarket clerk be allowed to refuse to sell meat?

[UncleSepp]

154. Should a vegan be working in a store that sells meat?

:popcorn: (ok, it is the only eating related smiley)

[AlienGirl]

156. If they are, and they refuse to sell the meat, they should be fired!

:popcorn: :beer:

[UncleSepp]

157. Is that compulsion?

Do your job or be fired?

:donut:

[AlienGirl]

158. Yup, sure is! Now I will stop doing any work at all on moral grounds!

They'll still have to pay me, though, because they shouldn't be allowed to "compel" me to work!
:spray:

[LiviaOlivia]

152. Need some help understanding compelling killing Iraqis

I do not see how you can compel someone to kill someone they do not want to. It just does not seem right to me.

You can not compel a citizen to pay taxes for murder.. Wrong!!!! I have to pay taxes for Bush's murderous war. Tell me about how to save the already born or the living as I would put it. Do you care about them?

To the OP: I doubt you're pro-choice. Honesty is always the best policy.

[UncleSepp]

153. Let me try this...

A person ought not be compelled to do (sell) something he or she finds to be morally objectionable. This seems to be a reasonable and perhaps noble statement. One wouldn't wish to compel a person to sell pork, but neither would one expect a person who objects to the eating of pork to work in a restaurant which sells bacon.

But what does "compelled" mean in that example? Should a person be compelled on threat of death to sell pork? Certainly not - and that is certainly compulsion. Should a person be compelled to either sell pork or leave his job at the hamburger stand once the stand starts selling bacon cheeseburgers? Is making a choice to fulfill one's job duties or find another job really compulsion?

A person ought not be compelled to do something he or she finds to be morally objectionable, but which is part of his or her profession.

To bring it back to the pharmacist, the question really comes down to whether or not it is part of a pharmacist's job to dispense all drugs prescribed. One might also see that from the opposite side: is it part of a pharmacist's job to make moral judgments on the prescriptions he or she dispenses?

At this point, the question is no longer philosophical, but legal and professional and very particular from industry to industry, profession to profession, and job to job.

Here is an example of where the law and tradition appear to stand. A man who objects to killing may register for the draft as a conscientious objector. If that man is drafted, he is supposed to be placed into a noncombat position where he will not be required to kill. He will still be required to support others who do kill, but is not supposed to be put in a position to directly do that which he finds unconscionable. The law and tradition do provide for a person's freedom not to be compelled to take immoral action. (This may not be true now: we will not know until a draft occurs.)

A pharmacist, however is not drafted. A pharmacist chooses his or her job freely, and as such, would be in a similar position to a person who volunteers for military service in peacetime and who then becomes a conscientious objector in a time of war. This is a difficult position, and so is the position of the pharmacist. The soldier may request, and may indeed be granted, a transfer to a job which will not put him in the position of taking life. The pharmacist may not have been in a position to participate in what he understands as the taking of life by dispensing the morning after pill when he chose his career, but with the availability of that drug, his position has changed. Unlike the peacetime volunteer, the pharmacist does have the choice to remove himself or herself from that position.

[Tsiyu]

159. you take an oath to help people..not to practice your faith

A cop can't refuse to help a Christian if he himself is a Pagan.

A public school teacher can't refuse to teach a Muslim child just because he himself is Jewish.

There are federal laws protecting people from discrimination in housing, employment, education.

When you agree to dispense medicines to the public, you also agree not to show bias or favoritism to your patients. This means you cannot control a woman's access to medications because of your personal beliefs about women's bodies. You cannot deny Viagra to a male (HA! That'll be the day!) because you disagree with the man's "religion" in the way he may conduct his sex life.

Your place is to practice medicine, science, based on facts and decisions over which you have no moral authority whatsoever.

If you want to sell medicines to patients based on archaic ideas about what other people should or should not do with and to their bodies, I would suggest a job with a religious organization, not a public pharmacy.

[seabeyond]

162. it is theirs to sacrifice for their religion. it is not us that sacrifice

because of their religion. if a pharmacist cannot do his job because of his religion then he needs to leave his job and find one that is in tuned with his relgion. what the relgious is asking is that we all sacrifice because of their relgion. we are not practicing it, it isnt ours to do, it is theirs.

[LWolf]

163. I think you can compel a pharmacist.

You are not asking a pharmacist to prescribe treatment or medication, or make a choice. The pharmacist is the gateway to the patient's choice. Refusal to sell compels the patient to allow someone else to limit their treatment choices.

Until anyone can get that pill anywhere without having to go through pharmacists who want to make personal choices about what meds they can and can't access, it's not up to the pharmacist. If they don't want to sell the meds that people have a legal right to purchase, then they need to find another profession: one where they can make their moral judgements without impinging on the choices of others.